Number and type of applications

Mr Delamere has raised concerns about 91 applications. He had earlier requested that the NZIS inform him how many applications had been decided under the Business Investor, LTBV and Employee of Relocating Business ("ERB") policies in 2002 within seven days, 14 days, and one month from the lodgement of the application to the date of the decision.

In a letter dated 25 March 2003 from Mr Lockhart to Mr Delamere, Mr Lockhart disclosed that 31 Investor and 60 LTBV applications were processed in less than 7 days (no ERB applications had been processed within that timeframe). These are the 91 applications referred to in Mr Delamere's letter of complaint.

After further review, the NZIS has advised that the total number of applications decided in 2002 within seven days from the lodgement of the application to the date of the decision was 89, not 91. The NZIS advised me that since 2003, the decisions made on two of the applications originally included in the data provided to Mr Delamere may have been reversed. This would mean that the decision date on these two applications would have been modified and would now fall outside the time frame of my investigation (January 2002 to December 2002). I have no reason to doubt this explanation, and in any event the change in numbers of applications is insignificant.

Of the 89 applications now recorded as having been decided within the seven day timeframe, 30 were Investor applications and 59 were LTBV applications.

Processing time for applications

I was advised that, at the time that the 89 applications were lodged and decided, the official position was that an Investor application and a LTBV application would take approximately three months to be processed. However, I was also advised, and I accept, that there was no average processing time for either type of application, and that the time it took to process an application would depend on a variety of factors. These included:

• the quality of the documentation provided in support of the application;
• the speed with which an applicant (or his or her agent) responded to requests for further information;
• the amount of further verification that the case officer considered necessary.

Approved and declined applications

Of the 89 applications, 82 were approved (56 LTBV and 26 Investor) and 7 were declined (3 LTBV and 4 Investor). Given the nature of Mr Delamere's allegations, it is difficult to see how there can be any concerns about the applications that were declined. Therefore, I will focus only on the 82 applications that were approved.

Replacement applications

Of the 56 LTBV applications and the 26 Investor applications recorded as having been approved within seven days from the lodgement of the application to the date of the decision, 19 of the LTBV applications and 5 of the Investor applications were "replacement applications".

I have ascertained that a case officer could enter an application into the Advanced Management System ("the AMS") (the NZIS database in which all applications and decisions made on those applications are recorded) where a mistake was made with the original application, or where a visa or permit label needed to be transferred into a new passport. This was known as a "replacement application". In 2002 the AMS did not distinguish a "replacement application" from a fresh application. I understand that there is now a separate function in the AMS which allows a case officer to identify a replacement application as such.

Therefore, even though at first sight these 24 replacement applications (19 LTBV and 5 Investor) appear as new applications, they in fact relate to applications on which a substantive decision had already been made.

I was advised and accept that it was not unusual for a replacement application to be raised and decided in AMS on the same day on the basis that the assessment of the application had occurred on an earlier date and a favourable decision made.

Spouse applications

A further 6 of the 56 LTBV applications were "spouse applications".

With Investor applications, a principal applicant and his or her spouse were recorded on the same AMS application. However, with LTBV applications, two different applications were raised in AMS, one for the principal applicant and one for his or her spouse. This was to enable different conditions to be placed on the principal applicant's and the spouse's visa or permit labels.

Therefore, even though at first sight these 6 spouse applications may appear as new LTBV applications, they are in fact applications secondary to LTBV applications which had already been decided.

I was advised and accept that after a decision is made on a principal applicant's application, a "spouse application" can be processed relatively quickly, assuming that good quality documentation has been provided with the application.

Section 18A application

One of the 26 Investor applications was a "section 18A application" (ie section 18A of the Immigration Act 1987). As set out above, section 18A provides that requirements may be imposed on residence permits after they are granted, in accordance with the applicable policy. The holder of a residence permit may apply for those requirements to be cancelled.

As discussed, the main requirement that the Investor policy stipulated was that every permit granted to a principal applicant under the policy had to include a requirement that the principal applicant invest his or her nominated funds in New Zealand for two years. Within three months of the end of the two year time frame, the holder of a permit under the Investor policy could apply to have the section 18A requirements lifted. Such an application would be raised in the AMS as "Permit, Residence, Removal of section 18A conditions".

I was advised and accept that an application to remove section 18A requirements was not a complex matter and could be decided relatively quickly.

General work visa application

One of the 56 LTBV applications was in fact an application for a general work visa, and should not have been raised in the AMS as an LTBV application. A French applicant made the application, unassisted by an agent, and it was tendered and decided in the NZIS branch in Paris (ie. by a case officer outside the BMB).

I was advised that an application for a general work visa could, depending on the quality of documentation provided, be decided relatively quickly. In this specific case, the decision to approve the application was made in two days (from the date the application was tendered to the date of the decision). I was advised and accept that this was not an unusually quick decision for such an application.

Summary of numbers of applications

In summary, I am satisfied that, of the 82 applications that remain of interest to me, the 24 replacement applications, the 6 spouse applications, the section 18A application, and the general work visa application (32 applications in total) were not complex or time consuming and could legitimately have been processed quickly. I can add that I have not seen or heard anything which causes me concern about these 32 applications.

On that basis, I have focussed on the remaining 50 applications, being 30 LTBV and 20 Investor applications, ie:

• 91 applications complained about (paragraph 3)
• Less 2 applications where the original decision entered on the AMS may have been subsequently reversed (paragraph 40).

Total 89 applications

• Less 7 applications (3 LTBV and 4 Investor) that were declined (paragraph 43)

Total 82 applications (56 LTBV and 26 Investor)

• Less 24 replacement applications (19 LTBV and 5 Investor) (paragraphs 44 to 47);
• Less 6 spouse applications (all lodged as LTBVs) (paragraphs 48 to 51); and
• Less 1 section 18A application (Investor) (paragraphs 52 to 54);
• Less 1 general work visa application (lodged as a LTBV) (paragraphs 55 to 56);

TOTAL 50 applications (30 LTBV and 20 Investor)

Nationality of applicants

Set out below is a table which identifies the nationality of the applicants who made the 50 applications in question:

Applicants from South Korea and China (38 applications) made 76% of the applications in question. I have noted the percentage of applicants from South Korea and China on the basis of Mr Delamere's comments that it was well known in the immigration industry that some applicants from these countries paid large sums of money to have their applications processed quickly. I note that at this time a large percentage of all applicants were from China or South Korea. I also note that, of these 38 applications, 20 of the Chinese applicants were assisted by agents, and all 16 of the South Korean applicants were assisted by agents.

Agents involved in the applications

Set out below is a table which identifies the names of the agents involved in the applications in question. Agents represented applicants on 40 of the 50 applications in question.

This table demonstrates that of the 40 applications on which agents acted, 22 different agents (plus two agents who cannot be identified) were involved from 19 different agencies. No one agent stands out as having been involved in any significant proportion of the 40 applications, or, with one exception, as having been involved in the 40 applications to any significantly greater extent than any other agent. Davenports, an Auckland law firm who have worked in this field for many years, worked on 9 of the 40 applications (Marcus Beveridge being responsible for all 9 applications). These numbers are higher than numbers for the other agencies, or for any one agent, but in themselves are unremarkable. Nor have I seen or heard anything to cause me any concern about the slightly heightened number of applications where Davenports acted. Indeed, the view of those I interviewed was that Davenports generally produced good quality applications.

Division of the applications

As indicated in the introduction to this report, in late 2001 and throughout 2002, the BMB operated two teams of case officers, with each team being led by a Service Manager. Peter Hendrikx and Catherine Parton were the two Service Managers. Internally, Mr Hendrikx's team was known informally to some as the "fast track" team. It is not clear how this came about, but the figures show that this team processed more of the applications that are the focus of this report (ie those applications that were processed quickly). It must, however, also be noted that just over 20% of the applications in question were processed by Ms Parton's team.

An analysis of the relevant information produces the following statistics about the remaining 50 approved applications:

Applications assessed by Mr Hendrikx's team

Case officer one: 25 applications (plus 4 replacement applications, and 2 spouse applications)

Case officer two: 5 applications (plus 3 replacement applications, and 1 section 18A application)

Case officer three: 1 application (plus 3 spouse applications)

Case officer four: 2 applications

Case officer five: 4 applications (plus 1 replacement application)

Case officer six: 1 application

Case officer seven: 1 application

Support team officer: 0 applications, (but 1 replacement application)

Total: 39 applications (plus 9 replacement, 5 spouse and 1 section 18A application)

Applications assessed by Ms Parton's team

Case officer one: 3 applications

Case officer two: 0 applications (but 1 replacement application, and 1 spouse application)

Case officer three: 1 application (plus 1 replacement application)

Case officer four: 1 application

Case officer five: 2 applications

Case officer six: 0 applications (but 1 replacement application)

Case officer seven: 1 application

Case officer eight: 1 application

Case officer nine: 2 applications

Total: 11 applications (plus 3 replacement applications and one spouse application)

Applications assessed by case officers outside the Business Migration Branch

I note also that of the original 82 applications, 13 were processed by 10 other case officers who were not part of the BMB, but who were employed in other NZIS branches ie Auckland, Manakau, Auckland Central, Paris, Beijing, Shanghai, New Delhi and Bangkok.

Of these 13 applications, 12 were replacement applications, and 1 was the general work visa raised as an LTBV application (referred to above). For the reasons set out above, I have chosen not to explore replacement applications or the general work visa application further. In any event, I note that these 12 replacement applications (and the 1 application that was filed incorrectly) came from 10 different case officers in 7 different branches.

Summary of applications assessed by the Business Migration Branch

Across both Mr Hendrikx's and Ms Parton's teams, 14 staff members were involved in the processing of the 50 applications in question. Of those 14 staff members (7 in Mr Hendrikx's team and 7 in Ms Parton's team), 13 of them were responsible for processing 1 to 5 applications each. One of those 14 staff members (a member of Mr Hendrikx's team) processed 25 applications - about half of the applications that I am interested in. Before I comment further on these statistics I will address in more detail how the two teams operated and, in particular, how applications were allocated. I was particularly interested in allocations of applications other than in chronological order, ie oldest first.

Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section